>>4305779
Correct, nowadays only full frame and M43 makes sense.
APS-C is pure copium

Reach?

>>4305779
what it is, is obsolete. there was a time when even flagship DSLR were APS-C because that was the biggest sensor anybody could fit into a hand-holdable camera without overheating or costing 6 figures. then, for a long time after FF camera did exist, they cost 2x the price of a APS-C with identical features.
that was all a long time ago.

>>4305785
You can't show me a single example where FF and APS-C come out to the same price WITH glass. APS-C is more affordable while providing comparable output

The canon r7 (and 90d) has a finer pixel pitch than any mft camera except the gh6/g9ii while not making the crop mandatory AND maintaining compatibility with the same great EF and RF lenses that also work on your full frame camera.
So canon APS-C has a point. A great point. Especially if you can afford two cameras.

Fuji? No point. The quality is actually nearly WORSE than micro four thirds because xtrans is worse for bayer for the same reasons bayer is worse than foveon. You need to throw FF money at a 40mp model to have it be almost as good as a $750 A7III. Almost as weather sealed, too! Just buy a full frame camera holy shit the x-t4 is even overpriced as fuck and if you ever shop for a used x-h1 you will notice the first 5-10 listings are always broken - thats because fujis arent weather sealed. Even the fucking GFX is so non-sealed you can shine a flashlight at a dial and see the circuit board.
Sony APS-C? Well, it's kind of like a worse canon R7, just like snoy is like worse canon. Canon and Nikon are still the only real choices for full frame.
Nikon APS-C? An actual fucking joke. Holy shit. Well, the APS-C *DSLRS* are ok, if you get them cheap enough, but not the mirrorless. Nikon is a full frame brand through and through.

I’m not a pro so I but any camera I want as a toy

>>4305781
>>4305787
This

>>4305787
>because fujis arent weather sealed
That's not entirely true

i don't need full frame because i only post on Instagram so no need to overpay.

>>4305791
It's entirely true

It's very easy to find stories of "My X-something got rained on, and now fuji says it needs a new motherboard!" and very hard to find similar stories for a nikon z6, an olympus om-1, a canon r-something, ANY pentax, etc, unless it was a case of gross abuse, like full immersion (and even then pentax cameras are known to survive this - fuji's ARENT)
https://www.reddit.com/r/fujifilm/comments/10sefvs/failed_xt5_weather_sealing/
https://www.reddit.com/r/fujifilm/comments/yh00ph/weather_resistant_weather_sealed/
https://www.reddit.com/r/fujifilm/comments/1b7d2ob/xt5_is_totaled_what_do_i_do/
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3978298
Fuji cameras just aren't consistently reliable. It's similar to all the dead sony cameras. Some retard says "mine worked" but that's just because water got in but didn't touch anything critical - they randomly die. Pentax cameras don't. Nikon cameras don't. Olympus cameras don't. If not submerged or used with a non-WR lens attached it basically never happens. Fuji is less common and yet has more failures.

Remember "the x100v is sealed just buy this filter"? Someone did, and the camera literally filled with water.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4657904

Fujicope: "resistant i-is not sealed ;_;"

You want a durable camera? fuji is trash, buy a pentax DSLR, or anything but fuji/sony. Apparently fuji/sony IBIS units also lock up in the cold while nikon Zs, OM-1s, and pentax K-1s are having no issues in alaska... must just be the build quality.

>>4305794
can we see some example photos of yours that required proper weather sealing to take?

File: baseddepartment.jpg (13 KB, 409x509)

13 KB JPG

>>4305794

>>4305795
Is this how fooljislugs defend paying z6ii prices for a7ii quality?

FYI NEVER POST FOR THEM. They want to target you for harassment like the hairy negatives guy. Huskyfag posted for a fujislug and the slug spent the rest of the thread trying to mock him.

>>4305798
for all the talk of weather sealing, look how irrelevant it is for everyone in the rpt threads
i just want to see some examples of good weather sealing being put to use, given how important everyone makes it seem

i post all the time, never got harassed

>>4305800
>i post all the time, never got harassed
You don't post when prompted by someone angry at you

>>4305794
Some Fujis are WR some are not

>>4305795
>can we see some example photos of yours that required proper weather sealing to take?
His silence is deafening

>>4305801
of course i do, im not a hypocrite
im just not a nophoto

>>4305809
Because this >>4305798 actually did happen. It poisoned “post photo” as did someone trying to dox cinefag. At least in the context of fuji arguments - the original shitshow was because huskyfag called the gfx50 a scam, as did cinefag, and it was then noticed that “post photo” only occurs when it is noted that fujifilm cameras are unusually bad.

>>4305795
does it matter? cameras get rained on between photos as well.

this matters:
other cameras that cost a similar amount of money have better build quality and higher image quality than fuji. fact.

open and shut case. dont buy fujishit.

>>4305820
>fuji logic: i paid $2000 for a camera that will break if its get wet and it doesnt matter because you dont have 5 photos taken mid downpour.
>olympus logic: i paid that much for my entire kit including lenses and it matters because my camera got wet while i kayaked across a lake and survived. same image quality btw.

>>4305820
>other cameras that cost a similar amount of money have better build quality and higher image quality than fuji. fact.
Prove it

>>4305828
Fuji’s owner fooljis already did >>4305794

You just dont see this “weather resistant is not weather sealed” cope and accompanying horror stories if its not fuji or sony. Sorry. They want nearly two grand for their newest model. Might as well save money for another week and buy a zf

>>4305820
100% true
still think fuji's weather sealing is adequate enough for most
i can find any amount of weather sealing failures or successes with any brand, don't put much faith in a handful of anecdotes
i just want to see these poor weather photos that are such a priority for the people here
without those, it just kinda feels like people complaining just to complain
hell, if people post some, i'll even post some of my own adverse weather shots too

>>4305838
The photo is just the final result, maybe it's the path to it that requires weather sealing. Maybe you need to go under a waterfall. Maybe you need to go on sub zero conditions while setting up the shoot.

>>4305838
Can you? Find as many for nikon flagships. D750, D800, D810, D850, Z6/II, Z7/II, etc. theres more cameras over more time so it should be simple. Fuji has a fraction of the history trying to make high end gear.

You can also choose modern canon flagships.

Basic rules against user negligence:
No immersion
No saltwater
Lens must be truly WR, not “sony wr” (labeled wr with no ass gasket)

Go!

Pro: they're small. My Ricoh GRIII exists. I'll take it.

Aside from that I agree with your points. I just edited a second shooter's take from a gig I was working, he was using a Fuji XT-4... wow. Dogshit. The pictures are fine enough, but wow, that camera is not doing him any favors.

What APS-C camera would you guys recommend then

>>4305821
can you post your mico 4 sharts pics? i see a lot of shit taking about fuji but 0 pics posted

>>4305850
I've always wondered how slim Sony could have got the RX1 if they had put a collapsible f/2.8 on it, the body alone is as slim as the GR

>>4305858
never post for an angry fujislug

>>4305858
Their silence is deafening

>>4305860
Yeah my colleague had that camera, it seemed like a really great camera marred by a horrible UI/UX and so-so autofocus.

Wish somebody would revisit that idea besides Leica with their Q cameras.

>>4305849
sure thing, i'll get started on finding those anectdotes for you, once you post some of your weather sealing successes photos

>>4305893
Does not follow. Either fuji is the same as others or worse and therefore not something that should be purchased.

>>4305895
Fuji has better colour than Sony

>>4305779
ok.

>>4305895
already said 100% true to
>other cameras that cost a similar amount of money have better build quality and higher image quality than fuji. fact.
still waiting on those photos

>>4305905
>special olympics winner

>>4305907
Not him but i never take photos that are obviously in the rain, but my camera still gets rained on.

>>4305779
>what's the point of aps-c
So poorfags can get into actual photography? Otherwise, it's just a stepping stone into FF.
>micro fool turds
LOL The average person trying to get into the hobby doesn't know or even heard about it so they would get nikon/sony/canon/fuji aps-c instead

>>4305795
>photos
>on /p/
Madman

>>4305779
rebels are the gateway drug to $5K+ kits to take pics of your cat

>>4305779
as a FF chad who also shoots medium format film, m4/3 is the only other format that has some appeal to me. something like the pen-f just looks fun. apsc looks like a downgrade from my ff digi in every single way and is barely smaller. whats the fucking point LOL

>>4305951
lol'd

>>4305780
>nowadays only full frame and M43
Problem is nowadays m43 bodies are full frame sized. If Lumix don't put out a small body this year I'm selling my m43 lens collection

>>4305986
Get an OM?

>>4305986
Get an S5 II

>>4305780
Yes, if you are a gearfag with a collectors mindset, because m43 is sufficiently different from your existing collection, and aps-c is not.

Basically APS-C is for people who can't afford and don't want to carry full frame but still want nicer photos. APS-C is for the man that buys one camera and uses it.
Full frame is for people that prioritize image quality and versatility more still and have money to burn
When micro four thirds is not for poor people and guys who literally have disabilities and can not carry much more weight, it's for the full frame sorts of people rounding out their growing collection. The market is aware of this which is why olympus is overpriced and panasonic is making $2000 camcorders that appeal more to the spec sheet enthusiast than a real videographer.

Guys, here's an idea...
What if people put APS-C sensors into MFT bodies?????
Better performance, slightly bigger image circle (capture vignetting, let you choose your preferred crop (3:2, or 4:3, or 1:1, take your pick)

how would this NOT be a great idea?
biggest deterrent to buying APS-C is it is a flawed system with lens mounts and a weird crop factor
if the sensors were behind a universal lens mount like MFT it would be incredibly based as fuck IMO

>>4306083
Why not put a full frame sensor into full frame bodies instead

>>4306088
Full frame sensors in mft bodies
Its called the sony a7c

>>4306083
Many 3p mft lenses are actually aps-c, I'm sure panasonic and olympus would be thrilled to send more sales their way.

>>4305779
You can't tell me one real pro of FF sensors. There's absolutely no point of full frame when medium format exists. It's not as small, compact or economical as APS-C nor do you get the resolution and capability of MF. I guess it's just so that people can feel like they're larping as MF. MF isn't even that much more expensive most of the time so being a poorfag is the only excuse

>>4306121
Only crop sensor copers, especially in gear circlejerks, say this specifically because it's clear to everyone else that MF lacks the capability. It's not like Nikon is making a well made MF. hasselblad is rattly chinese shit, fuji is rattly chinese shit and all of the lenses are equivalently slow (and a bit soft wide open), the hardware capability outside of simple imaging is a decade behind entry level FF, and it's not even real medium format. You have to spend $XX,XXX on phase one gear to get real medium format that's actually well made and those cameras are essentially fully manual 1fps studio darlings.

Despite all our technology people don't seem to give a shit over full frame.

>>4306123
Full frame is cool today because display technology hasn't even caught up to FF yet. Just barely. 4k is about where you can barely, barely tell sensor sizes and sensor resolutions apart, sometimes.

Also, very few people are printing posters.

Who here has an 8k display so you can view an A7IV in its full glory? If you do you're one of the few people who might be able to tell 100mp fake medium format from a Z7II/A7RV without cropping out over half the image.

>>4306123
>>4306124
Now you two spend your time here while I'll be taking MF raws and APSC jpg snapshits for the rest of my life.

>>4306131
Post cameras
Post photos

>>4306123
Well made crop medium format died with pentax. RIP.

>>4305779
>It's not as small, compact or economical as micro four thirds
EOS M was.

>nor do you get the resolution and capability of FF
In good light you do get the resolution of FF for the same sensor MP. A 24mp FF will be sharper ooc than a 24mp aps-c, but extinction resolution is the same because Nyquist is the limiting factor. In good light you can sharpen aps-c in post without fucked up noise.

In poor light you're fucked. FF is cleaner and sharper and if you try to match one you fuck the other in post with crop. aps-c is also fucked against high resolution FF on big prints.

>NO REASON!
Economics. Most people will never need more than aps-c.

>>4305779
I do astrophotography and dont have a ton of money. by using a crop sensor I increase my effective focal length while not sacrificing resolution. APS-C sensors have better pixel density, or at least mine does and most current models do. because I chose a smaller physical sensor size, all my lenses were cheaper. I was also able to get a DSLR that was still as lightweight as a mirror less full frame.
there is a minor downside to my sensor size in that typically I collect less light, but this doesn't even matter for me (and astrophotography is the lowest light photography there is).
if I had gone full frame, I simply would have spent twice as much money getting started.

>>4306143
>sharpness is a slider
thanks mr. rockwell

>>4306166
What camera do you use?

>>4305787
>TFW recently bought a 90D at a discount instead of a FF for way more
I feel validated. I love this thing like you wouldn't believe.

FF sensors and cameras are better because are designed with the pro market in mind, but are a bit bigger and heavier (except like a7c) and way more expensive.
Same for FF lenses and aps-c ones! The advantage of aps-c is that there are a lot more lenses, many are decent and extremelly cheap and this allows you to experimentate.
Moreover with aps-c you have a 1.5x and decent quality lightweight tele for cheap. There are several good pancakes, so you can have several pokettable setups.

Overall, if you are a pro (or a fanatic) it makes perfectly sense to invest in a FF coupled with a couple of high end lenses. You will pay more than 5k probably gut you will have a spot on specialized setup. If you are a newbie that want to experiment and learn or if you are an hobbyist with no huge needs, aps-c is way way more convenient because let you try many many different things before, in case, going FF if needed.

M43 for me is not an option because it's 4:3 (eww) but another thing to consider is that there are no interoperability between M34 and a-psc/FF in case of an upgrade. E or Z mounts are interoperable and this is good. Moreover, lots of third party m43 lenses are actually adapted aps-c ones.

Optically, the relativelly justified hype for FF is about the shallow depth of field that you cannot really achieve with aps-c let alone with M43. The other objective advantage of FF is if you are into wide angles. The widest FF is 10mm while the widest aps-c is 13.5 (it's a lot at there apertures).
Electronically, the bigger is the single photodetector the better for noise! Pixel density is important hence FF have an advantage here, but aps-c quality (but also M43 desu) is so good that it's not really important aside very specialized cases.
Bigger photodetectors also mean a sharper image for optical reasons because sharpness is proportional to the ratio of photodetecto size/circle of confusion size.

>>4306224
>FF is more than 5k!
Where
Australia? Lol.

Z6II or A7III: $1000
24-120 f4 S or 24-105 f4 G: $700-900
Some S line or G line prime: $500
Do you need more? The zoom is overkill for most people here who would prefer to just buy a second cheap prime, and hundreds can be saved by going with tamron E mount lenses or nikon F mount+ftz.
Hundreds more can be saved (well over $500) if you are good enough to use a DSLR.

>>4306235
FF is expensive is a codeword for “i like birds and mtf charts” or “i like fast zooms and mtf charts”
A birding tele or wedding lens is <$1000 but native to mirrorless its $2500… plus, and normally comes with friends.

>>4306235

>Do you need more?

No, infact I use aps-c for personal use. On that price range yuo can get almost the same results (except the afomentioned optical considerations) with an aps-c like the a6600 and a tamron zoom plus random primes.
If you really whant to enjoy the quality gap between aps-c and FF you have to spend quite more on lenses.

Funfact, you would have similar result mounting those FF lenses on aps-c but it wouldn't make much sense.

>>4306243
No, you really dont. f4 wide ranging zooms are without equal on crop. As are any autofocus primes that are around f2 and sharp wide open.

There’s also the ISO advantage and photosite size advantage for sharpness and good colors at high ISO, and photosite COUNT advantage, there is no real high resolution crop sensor. Fuji has 40mp with a 2/3 resolution cut from wormtrans. Used a7rivs are heading towards $1500.

>>4306243
you absolutely do not need to spend a lot on lenses to afford ff. rather you’d need to spend as much on lenses for slightly worse results to match that on aps-c. which is totally pointless.

I had a6000, a6400, i tried a6600 and a7ii and a7c with different lenses. Previously I used nikon with similar results.
My experience is mostly what I reported.

>>4306257
I agree with this, but on the pricetag specified by >>4306236 the two formats are very similr. >>4306256 is true about the advantages, but they barelly justify the increase in price and size for regular people, imho.

>>4306258
The thing about shooting equivalently on apsc is the size and price is the same unless you give up weather sealing and anything resembling sharp lenses with good rendering and use sone e-waste apsc lenses and non-l plastishit cannot gear.

Consumer system is consumer. Save one extra overtime shifts pay and buy a used FF. $2000 = z6ii and two S primes.

>>4305779
They're better at making kino

>>4306243
>If you really whant to enjoy the quality gap between aps-c and FF you have to spend quite more on lenses.
>Funfact, you would have similar result mounting those FF lenses on aps-c
Full frame is much less demanding of lens sharpness at the same resolution, and you get more resolution at the same pixel density. You're going to need a pretty sharp lens to make use of a 24mp+ APS-C sensor but it doesn't take anything particularly special to get a sharp image on a full frame sensor of the same resolution. Even a 42mp full frame sensor is only as demanding as an 18mp crop sensor.

>>4305779
lens and wildlife photography/sports action. 1.5 crop magnification factor is significant for lens reach.

>>4306282
The look you get from digital magnification is not very different from a 1.4x teleconverter, ISO bump included. On the other hand, how do you un-TC your crop sensor? Autofocus speedboosters are not commonplace and soften lenses. If you're like 99.999999999% of people it's better to buy a full frame camera and just keep TCs in mind if you ever buy a fuckhuge telephoto lens.

>>4306258
I considered going APS-C ones and basically >>4306261 that.

The lenses I would use are the same size, same price, and wouldnt even be the same thing equivalently, and there is no equivalence between large and small pixels or 24mp and 45mp or bayer and xtrans, the cameras are fundamentally different.

The R7, an FF sized body that is best used with FF lenses, is all that makes sense and only if you lean hard into birds and sports. Otherwise mft has appeal as a toy camera but FF is king.

>>4306278

This is true, but even the stock 55-210 sony zoom on the old 6400 is enought to produce acceptable results for a hobbyist that can be printed on a 50x30 having printing quality as a bottleneck.

That said, yes, FF is better than aps-c because FF systems are designed to be better + they have some tecnical advantages

>>4306290
>a6400 with 55-210, 50x30
Post a photo of this print

I know a lot of 30+ boomers have bad eyesight and very low standards for physical photography (it's almost like they prefer blurry prints) so I wonder if ken rockwells are not a myth. 30- boomers have sharper eyes and easily hold prints to more fine art-like standards.

>>4306292

I've not said that the print extremely sharp, i said it is a bottleneck. 50x30 on photopaper (the laboratories around me uses enlargers with digital projectors) is around 20€ and it's not extremelly sharp. The typographic print on good matte cotton paper is about 50-100€ here. Put the framing on top and you can easily see that for an hobbyist the photo paper is ok.

I can also assure you that once you are on your cough and you look at a pic on the wall, sharpness doesn't really matter that much. I also have a couple of advertising posters in cmyk halfone that are pretty good. In general color fidelity in printing is better than a sharpness. =)

>>4306344
The print shops around me use digital RA-4/"lightjet" printing and offer museum grade papers and framing.

I don't mind holding prints to a sharpness standard when people can stand as close or far away as they want, especially after spending $1k+ on a camera.

>>4306348

Just out of curiosity, how much do you pay for it. Just to know what I'm missing living in a small town.

>>4306351
$2.40 for an 8x10, $23 for a 16x20, eventually getting up to $100 for a 50x30, on fujicolor crystal archive.

They charge nearly 10x that for using fine art papers. All actual silver halide papers intended for darkroom use.

>>4306180
>noooooo you can't use an unsharp mask!
This will blow your mind: the unsharp mask is named "unsharp mask" because the algorithm does the same thing as an "unsharp mask" in the darkroom:
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/unsharp/

File: 1699835194396781.png (6 KB, 685x625)

6 KB PNG

Why are there so many MFT cameras that cost the same as FF

>>4306648
They promise gay little crutches so you can seethe when people with a7iis and DSLRs are taking the same BIF shots
A fool turd and his money are soon parted

>>4306700
>yah bro m-my om-1ii has bird detect 0 blackout 40fps…and if you put it in this af mode the speed goes up to… this lens here has more reach than any ff and no it is not a sigma it clearly says om system…
>some guy with a canon 6d and a 100-400L… version one: *CLACK. CLACK. CLACK. CLACK.* holy shit, i got the shot!

File: 1705335160016272.png (403 KB, 1046x861)

403 KB PNG

>>4306648
wait till you see their fucking lenses

>>4306722
Lmao

>>4306722
Where did you get this picture of muh dick?!

>>4306283
>digital magnification

the crop factor is native, it's not digital zoom.

>muh teleconverter.

stfu dumb dumb. not only can two play that game, but people don't want to fuck up their photos. professional wildlife photographers shoot crop sensors.

>>4307032
>it's not digital zoom
it is literally the same as aps-c mode on an a7riv. crop factor is digital magnification. like finer grained film, cut down to a smaller size before you even shoot it to approximate a larger sheet of less fine grained film.

i have seen multiple side by sides where teleconverters on full frame had the same look as crop sensors so why not just buy a teleconverter on FF instead of permamently crippling every lens because really, if you're not an MFTbabby shooting from their car you dont need more than 400mm 99% of the time

>>4307034
To be fair there is a slight AF advantage to shooting crop versus full frame with a TC. In terms of the image sure, the light lost by the TC is made up for by the better noise performance of full frame, but full frame doesn't have more sensitive AF sensors than crop.

Also TCs cost money, so that's on top of the more expensive full frame body.

my main setup is a snoy a6600 & sigma 24-70 f2.8 art. before I ever got the sigma, i fucked around with some adapted 50mm & 135mm super-takumar m42 lenses and found them pretty cool with the apsc crop factor allowwing me to push further into subjects.

The sigma resulted from me wanting to try a modern FF zoom lens. overall love the setup even if it isnt the best weight wise.

>>4306181
canon EOS rebel sl3

>>4305779
One huge pro is that I already own a camera with a crop sensor. Also none of the clients I've taken for photography-related side gigs have ever complained about muh pixels on my photos. You can chase muh sharpness and muh resolution forever and buy every new generation of camera body, the quality of your photography isn't going to change and if you aren't frequently working jobs that demand those stats you're blowing that extra money for nothing.

>inb4 poorfag
This insult only wounds other gearfaggots, which is ironic since it's usually aimed at people outside of the gearfag circlejerk. Outing yourself as being clinically retarded with your hobby spending isn't the "gotcha" you think it is

>>4307117
better cameras are better
+
you have no idea how rich we are here
>gamestop
>shitcoins

>>4307034
>it is literally the same as aps-c mode

>literally

no. there are technical differences. even if it appears close to you.

>>4307034
>so why not just buy a teleconverter

people don't do this. There are technical factors why crop is better. lenses and sensor speed are big reasons. super 35 is still used in movie productions and that's barely bigger than APSC. The alexxa lf is a super 35 camera that costs 40k.

>>4307247
People do buy TCs. Most accomplished wildlife photographers do ff+TCs instead of carrying a noisier, softer body built to lower standards all the time.

Only pentax and old, old nikon ever built aps-c to pro standards. Every other crop sensor camera sucks more, except the om-1/e-m1.

>>4305779
yo

>>4307034
>it is literally the same as aps-c mode on an a7riv. crop factor is digital magnification.
No it is not. Digital zoom/magnification means interpolating to achieve a larger view size/higher ppi at view size given a limited number of image pixels. Crop factor does not imply nor require interpolation.

If you have a 24mp FF and 24mp aps-c camera and you are reach limited such that you have to crop/enlarge the FF image, then the aps-c camera will have higher pixel density. At some point you either have to accept visible IQ loss on the FF image or interpolate to match. This is crop sensor reach advantage.

Now, if the pixel density is roughly the same between the two cameras...say a 61mp FF and 24mp aps-c...then there is no crop sensor reach advantage.

>i have seen multiple side by sides where teleconverters on full frame had the same look as crop sensors
If you put a 1.4x on a 24mp FF then yes, the output will be close enough to 1.5/1.6x aps-c that it mitigates the crop sensor reach advantage. Someone may prefer to do this, or they may prefer to have a second aps-c body.

>>4305795
Can we see some example offspring of yours that required proper reproductive organs to make?

>>4306083
Didn't Panasonic do that for a few of their models?

>>4306224
>it's 4:3 (eww)
What a fag.

File: IMG_1973.jpg (36 KB, 700x297)

36 KB JPG

>>4307650
Yes, but they did it with mft and just made it barely bigger, just enough for it to be m43 size at the normal aspect.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	700
Image Height	297
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4307650
>>4307654
I think he's talking about the LX100, which uses a 4/3 sensor and a fixed lens and allows you to change the aspect ratio but maintain the field of view

File: regrett_061338.jpg (209 KB, 911x882)

209 KB JPG

>>4305779

>>4307661
That could mean anything

File: 1689839559271318.png (16 KB, 585x111)

16 KB PNG

>>4307654
>>4307657
GH5s, GH2, and GH1 used slightly oversized (~7% size increase) sensors which are still smaller than APS-C while the rest of Panasoynic's """multi-aspect ratio""" sensors are literally cropping from the existing 4/3 sized sensor.

File: 1692723429690472.png (93 KB, 739x889)

93 KB PNG

The GH2/1 were decent, but it was really only a difference of 7.4% in recording area compared to a normal 4/3 sensor.

But then Panasoynic basically scammed people with the LX100's """multi-aspect ratio sensor""" with a base 17% sensor usage reduction in 4/3 still shooting, then further crop in video mode that's somehow even a smaller area than 1" cams.

File: 1705138467722693.png (34 KB, 602x297)

34 KB PNG

>>4307671

>>4307043
>the better noise performance of full frame
That's only because of the larger photosites, a benefit taken away by projecting less light onto them.

>>4307708
Yeah that's pretty much what I said, it evens out

>>4305779
>Buy entry level aps-c to get into digishit photography
>Went with Canon in particular because it adapts easier to the old glass I already had
>Learn about the inherent limitations of the format after buying
>End up buying fat cunt 5D
>Smoll sensorlett camera lives on as dedicated telephoto lens holder that I only ever leave at home anyway, along with the 5d
Such is the life of a gearfag.

>>4307709
It doesnt even out. No real 45-61mp apsc

File: Screen Shot 2024-04-29 at(...).jpg (262 KB, 1162x1174)

262 KB JPG

>>4307708
>That's only because of the larger photosites, a benefit taken away by projecting less light onto them.
FF has less noise due to higher SNR overall (larger surface area collecting more light). With gapless micro lenses pixel size is almost irrelevant. I say "almost" because it starts to become relevant at extreme ISOs (i.e. 50k and higher). Below that it's just not a significant factor. People like to point to the A7R V as a counter example, but the A7R IV has the same pixel density and doesn't break the pattern. Something else is going on in the V's electronics.

Now if the AF sensors are the same size and tech then yes, apsc will have a ~1ev AF advantage when a teleconverter is on FF. Same size/tech is not necessarily a safe assumption though as manufacturers like to throw their best into FF. And for mirrorless a FF AF sensor can be larger than an apsc one without noticeable disruption to the image. Beyond that, teleconverters tend to be used in brighter light. If you're above a certain threshold it's not going to matter.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	144 dpi
Vertical Resolution	144 dpi
Image Width	1162
Image Height	1174

>>4305779
Oh boy another sensor size thread... how original ...

>My blah blah density dynamic range Snoy meter backlighting!
> My depth of field reach range mount size filter ugh!
>Still Not taking pictures
>Still not outside
>Still jobless

When will it end.

>>4305780
>APS-C is pure copium
>tries to cope with m43
lmao dead mount

>>4305780
>M43 makes sense.
I'm a brainlet, why is m43 better / different that aps-c?

>>4309611
Because he's a gear collector and aps-c is just a touch too close to full frame, so he'd rather buy a much worse camera just to have more variety on his increasingly dusty photography shelf

File: Untitled.png (840 KB, 2401x970)

840 KB PNG

>>4309611
To be frank, micro four thirds has no point unless you think shooting wildlife with a telephoto that functions and renders like someone stacked TCs on full frame sounds appealing, or intend to spend <$1k on your camera and multiple lenses.

>>4305986
>I'm selling my m43 lens collection
same, I decided to sell everything and get an used a7riii + probably a 40mm 2.5
After trying a lot of things I realized that I don't really care about the versatility and having several lenses to be able to shoot anything, I find it more stimulating to make do with just one prime and at this point I might as well go for the higher quality so I can masturbate over the details

File: F77C5633-02FF-4393-B98A-3(...).png (703 KB, 615x461)

703 KB PNG

>>4305779
APS-C/M43 MILCs are more compact and so are the lenses for them.
Depending on where you shoot and under wich conditions, size and weight might be limited.
But since /p/ doesn't go outdoors and shoot anything further than 100 m from their car, that doesn't realy matter, does it?
Sure, get that FF DSLR/MILC with the big lenses required, and make sure to bring 10 of them you definitly need, totaling like 10 kg of gear.
If you're/out/doors, you'll appreciate the lower weight and bring a fast normal zoom as well as a tele zoom lens and maybe a small, lightweight tripod.

File: E-M5-III_M.Zuiko-Digital-(...).jpg (243 KB, 932x800)

243 KB JPG

>>4311290
sounds like a weak zoomer's problem, unless you are climbing K2 you can deal with the slight extra weight. Gen X photographers used to haul gigantic FF DSLR kits everywhere without crying about it

>>4311306
If you're climbing, on a long hike or on a long MTB ride, the lower weight is a huge advantage.
After all, your camera gear isn't the only stuff you need to carry.
And the big advantage comes with the size of telephoto lenses, for the same reach you need about 1,5x as much focal length with FF after all
>Gen X photographers used to haul gigantic FF DSLR kits everywhere without crying about it
I know, and while I'm a zoomer myself, I started into photography with old, used film gear before switching to DSLR.
It certainly is possible to carry a set of primes plus telezoom and a SLR/FF-DSLR on a long trip, but it isn't great.
And in the end, I can carry another small bottle of water and a few energy bars instead wich enables me to go further and take more/better pics.

>>4311306
Pretty much anyone backpacking or climbing >3k feet will tell you a pound or two is a very significant difference. This isn't UL bullshit the difference between those setups is like 600g and you aren't even comparing telephotos yet. The Oly lens even does 1x macro magnification after equivalence, that with the tiny (weather sealed) fl-lm3 and a diffuser covers a lot of bases.

File: file.png (661 KB, 2984x930)

661 KB PNG

>>4311290
>Are more compact
Fuji next to zf, lumix gx* next to a7c, the cameras are the same size give or take 0.1 pounds

>>4311309
Let me remind you that you are bitching about the dumbest shit on earth by using GRAMS (a non-unit invented to increase the psychological impact of small differences - we use pounds and kg here) and comparing an f8 zoom to an f4 zoom. In fact, you are comparing a 24-90 f8 to a 24-105 f4. Actually fucking retarded.

This is absolutely retarded because nobody on full frame would willingly use an f8 zoom knowing exactly how shitty their photos would come out. Diffraction smears after stopping down once, high ISO all the time, ouch. I have seen the photos from such setups. I have used such setups. Like the difference between FF and non-fuji APSC ie: canon R7 is small if you put equally good glass on each, essentially down to 50% changes in sharpness and noise, - the difference between m43 and an android phones camera is even smaller ESPECIALLY when you put a 24-90 f8 on it.

Put comparable lenses on and the difference is astoundingly small. Who would use an f8 zoom anyways? Phone tier images.
>inb4 this must surely be bokeh
1: You would embrace and enjoy bokeh as an option if you were not coping with your stupid purchases
2: l2hyperfocal, if you cant shoot a landscape at f4 you literally do not know how to use a camera
3: diffraction after stopping down once lmao

>omg "62 grams" (in real units: 0.062kg or 0.13lb)
>i am going to die
Then it gets funnier. Compare primes and the m43 is slower, softer, bigger, and "heavier" (in grams)

Olympus sold the camera division for a reason. Panasonic abandoned m43 except for a FF sized camcorder for a reason. The market segment these used to compete in was replaced by smartphones. All they have now is gimmicks that real photographers don't care about like FPS and bird detect AF. You know most significant bird photos were shot on a 5fps DSLR right?

>Im hiking 3000000 miles i cant carry an extra half pound
>thats why im using a phone tier bridge camera instead of my phone which takes photos that look the exact same
Whats the exact justification, being cucked into having to use an iphone instead of a good droid?

>>4311332
-t. doesn't go outside and benchraces cameras

>>4311332
You have not actualy looked at a single lense with a decently long focal length.
That's where the differences start getting quite significant.
Something like a 300 mm on APS-C or 450 mm on full frame at the long end of a tele-zoom.
Also learn how to convert equivalent aperture and focal length, my friend.
APS-C 17-50 mm f/2.8 is FF 26,5-75 mm f/4.2

>>4311332
Just pretend there's an a7c with a 24-70 f4 (or the same sized and much better made, fully weather sealed 20-70 f4, which pxlmag forgot existed along with the 24-50 f2.8 and new lightweight UWA)

How about something that's actually comparable? Let's keep everything roughly equally high quality

Nikon ZF: $2000, add the grip, 1.5lbs
50mm f1.8: $500 used, 1lb
-Alt: 26mm f2.8: $500 used, nothing-lb
-Alt: 24-120 f4 S pseudo-macro, $900 used, 1.5lbs (night? who shoots at night?)
400mm f4.5: $2000 used, 2lb

G9II: $1600 new/$1450 used, 1.5lb
42.5mm f1.2: Quite slow, $1000 used
200m f2.8: $3000? Ugh, I quit. This is not worth saving 2" in length and... wait, it's heavier than the 400mm? Shit.

>>4311335
I do go outside that's why I think olympus sells worthless scam gear that can easily be replaced by an iphone (24-90 f8 lol). You could say phones have reached a point where they can be as good as cameras, but the reality is cameras have stayed at such a low point that there are still systems that take the same photos as phones.

File: lol.png (1.32 MB, 1476x1328)

1.32 MB PNG

>>4311340
You are not looking at the apertures. To keep those zooms fast (you're hiking right? animals move fast and come out at dawn and dusk), the zooms get just as large again, and then you get m43 quality.

>>4311335
>benchraces
man literally says mirrorless autogimmicks dont matter and that the majority of good photographers used reflex

we're only discussing mirrorless itt because /p/ cant expose a photo without live view and insists on saving literally one pound

>>4311343
>f/1.2
>quite slow
Anon, have you forgotten to take your meds again?

>>4311351
On a micro four thirds camera, that $1000+ f1.2 lens performs identically a to a cheap full frame f2.4 lens. Sigma makes a FF 90mm f2.8 that's close enough and half the price.

I'm not going to mention the price of their fast standard or go into manual focus (nearly a grand and mf only for f1.8). Panasonic makes good video cameras and deserves better than the embarrassment of being compared to nikon's stills system, because if you dont expect it to compete as a stills system and appropriately view it as a video system, it makes a lot more sense, because for most people in most situations the G9II is a much better overall video system.

>>4311349
The big advantage of mirrorless isn't gimmics, it's the shorter flange distance.
Shorter flange distances make it a lot easier to design wide angle and fast normal lenses.
Meanwhile SLRs need retrofocal optics for anything shorter than about 50 mm, wich degrades image quality as well as lens speed and they add weight.
Wich is why fast wide angle primes for DSLRs (especialy APS-C) suck, but work pretty well for MILC.
Granted, for anything longer than 50 mm (physical focal length), there isn't much of a differnce.

>>4311354
This isn't actually true. Some of the sharpest UWAs ever made are on EF mount, but MILCs have made it a lot easier to correct LoCA for short telephotos and obsess over the quality of the bokeys.

What is true is that APS-C to FF is negligible in many situations, and important in others, and M43 is either negligible compared to FF unless you are a panaCHAD and shooting video, or a total scam and more comparable to a phone.

>>4311355
Okay, show me one wide angle lens for DSLRs that doesn't require complicated retrofocal optics or simmilar copes to get around a 40+ mm flange distance.
Hint: There is a reason why DSLR lenses with focal lengths shorter than 20 mm and apertures of f/2 and fastwr are rare, huge and expensive as hell.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (64 KB, 1280x720)

64 KB JPG

>>4311357
So now you've made it from "they arent even sharp" to "ok they're kinda big tho" (doesnt matter lol)

Confirmed: DSLRs are for manly men who can lift a "gargantuan" 16-35 f4 L, which is still getting used on mirrorless because it's too good (PS: a canon milc with the ef-rf is about the same size as a canon dslr)

File: file.png (809 KB, 1994x822)

809 KB PNG

>>4311357
>it's a cope!
>lets take a look
>oh mirrorless is still using retrofocal lenses instead of symmetrical UWAs because symmetrical UWA designs sucked on film and they suck even more on digital even with curved microlens memes

>>4311365
If you remove all size and monetary constrains, you can make just about anything, yea.
Like, fuck Zeiss made lens systems capable of projecting in excess of 200 000 lp/mm.
Downside is that it weights several tons.
Compactness, weight and price are advantages, if you like it or not.
Also yes, obviously a MILC running an adapter that increases its flange distance to DSLR levels to run a DSLR lens going to be simmilarly large in total as a DSLR with that lens.
That doesn't surprise anyone, however an equivalent lens designed for the shorter flange distance of a MILC can be way more compact.
Take as an example the Canon RF 28 mm f/2.8

File: 82374556f95a417a85495aa7d(...).jpg (50 KB, 560x447)

50 KB JPG

>>4311374
Sure that lens is small, but they didn't even weather seal it, and most of the size savings came from the exotic elements and software corrections. A similar lens would not have been much bigger on EF if they had the technology required to make these bullshit elements, and everyone would bitch about their OVF showing a distorted, heavily vignetting nightmare.

It's not merely the mount. It's manufacturing tech, and the EVF lying to you. Manufacturing tech matters in every field no matter how banal. Today, the bic crystal writes like shit compared to a twsbi eco that lasts for life as long as you dont pull it apart to be a redditor about ink swaps. But when it was made, fountain pens were leaky and prone to drying out, because FP manufacturing wasn't good enough yet, but ball bearing manufacturing was, and it changed the world, just because the older, theoretically better writing tech didn't come with the manufacturing advanced it needed to be well executed.

In the future your relatives children will look back on the days of SLRs and curse us for abandoning them because they will have the manufacturing and optics expertise (like elements that can be transformed with electrical current) to make absolutely tiny SLRs with tiny lenses. They will think "even with the tech of their day, they could have just did that with an SLR and it would be about the same size, but with a glorious OVF and no AI editing out politically controversial objects!". And they will curse us, brother. They will curse us. "Couldnt they have at least had digitally coupled rangefinders instead of lying AI VFs?"

>>4311378
It does make use of corrections for distortion and abberations, but that has been done for decades now, same with aspherical lenses.
However what enables it to be so small is largely the much shorter flange distance.
It's actualy pretty hard to design a lens with a focal length shorter than the flange distance of a given camera, and it gets harder the more the focal length is shorter than the flange distance.

File: file.png (481 KB, 1472x622)

481 KB PNG

>>4311384
But given todays manufacturing capabilities and exotic elements, don't you think it could have gone on a DSLR without being much larger?

Was saving fractions of inches worth giving up the joys of reflex?

>>4311394
>But given todays manufacturing capabilities and exotic elements, don't you think it could have gone on a DSLR without being much larger?
No, because it uses essentialy the same manufacturing techniques as where available decades ago.
For decades now we've had enough computational power to do raytracing, great engineers working with dedicated CAD software, CNC grinding machines and different kinds of glass.
>Was saving fractions of inches worth giving up the joys of reflex?
These savings come into effect with all kinds of lenses with focal lengths shorter than the flange distance as well as many fast lenses.
And that allows for much simpler designs with better optical performance than would be possible on 40+ mm flange distance.

>>4311397
>No, because it uses essentialy the same manufacturing techniques as where available decades ago.
Yeah, that's why canon made so many exotic element lenses.
>These savings come into effect with all kinds of lenses with focal lengths shorter than the flange distance as well as many fast lenses.
Meanwhile most mirrorless lenses are actually larger for very incremental edge sharpness/bokeh fringing improvements and people can't tell d750 photos from z6ii photos.

>>4311405
I mean, they did make quite a few lenses with aspherical lenses for decades.
However there are a few lenses that do make massive use the better sensors and DPAF to get more compact, like the RF 600 mm f/11 IS and RF 800 mm f/11 IS compact telescoping super telephoto lenses.

>>4311412
A mere aspherical isn't quite as exotic as today's mustache elements.

>f/11 primes
They're small because they're fixed aperture primes with a storage position. Just consoomer cucking that could have been done as easily on a DSLR.
>Better sensors
You mean better noise reduction.

>arguing against Reflex(tm)
you cant. mirrorless has no real advantages.

>>4311423
Based and trve

Mirrorless? It's called live view lol

>>4311332
>Diffraction smears after stopping down once
Did you know? People who actually go outside and take photos do so at apertures like f/16 FF equivalent all the time. This is why I don't trust anyone who engages in this debate. Just complete disconnect from real photography.

>>4311435
Yeah we've seen the photos that result from people with ken rockwells quality standards
They aren't good and it may very well be what really killed photography.

REAL photography, ie: fashion, editorials typically uses full frame to medium format for a reason. it's important enough that over 50% of editorials and fine art are still shot on medium and large format film.

Remember olympanon posting his smeary landscapes that looked exactly like phone snaps?

>>4311435
the overwhelming majority of normal people who go outside to take normal daytime shots at f/16 switched to phones because they could not tell the phones results apart from their crop sensor cameras.

the photographers who are knowledgeable and discerning enough to still get use out of non-phone cameras have actually trended towards shooting landscapes at wider apertures because they're doing art instead of vacation documentation

>>4311437
If you can't tell a photo taken at f/16 on a real camera from a phone photo you are blind or tasteless. Like I said, complete disconnect from real photography.

>>4311438
you can, especially if said "real camera" is a crop sensor. print it and it gets even closer. we're talking good phones here of course, not a low budget iphone model that forces oversharpening. once again the overwhelming majority of normal people who go outside to take normal daytime shots at f/16 switched to phones because they could not tell the phones results apart from their crop sensor cameras. you don't know some secret about photography and neither do other anti-gear gearfags like ken rockwell, your photography is just so technically simple and quality non-critical that you dont actually need an ILC to do it anymore.

micro four thirds specifically, unless you spend FF money on near FF sizes to get slightly worse than FF results (which is ok for video, i admit, because nobody stares at individual frames for quality), died because phones killed it.

>>4311439
I have an inherent distrust of someone that uses shitty low resolution crop sensor ILCs unless they're doing so for the zany effect lenses like commieshit and lensbaby. They're either delusional or they've been believing delusional people because they're semi-obscure gear these days.

There's a reason the higher market is moving towards more resolution and gradually shifting towards crop MF being the new FF, and the lower market ranges from neglected to dying to dead. Staying ahead of phones.

>>4311417
>They're small because they're fixed aperture primes with a storage position.
>Just consoomer cucking that could have been done as easily on a DSLR.
Nope, because they are f/11 an optical viewfinder wouldn't realy work well with such lenses.
And neither would the AF sensors in most DSLRs.
>Better sensors
>You mean better noise reduction.
Not realy, the sensors themselfes have also gotten better at producing a higher signal/noise ratio to begin with.
Noise reduction has gotten better as well, but that's not what I was talking about.
Anyway, they are just about the only lenses with that kind of range on FF that are not super bulky/heavy

File: Canon_EF_28mm_f2-8_Optica(...).gif (3 KB, 238x220)

3 KB GIF

>>4311357
>show me one wide angle lens for DSLRs that doesn't require complicated retrofocal optics
Here you go, unless you consider a 5 element design "complicated".

>>4311442
Canon sensors have gotten better because they were subpar to begin with, and mostly they got better at applying forced NR.

>>4311374
>Zeiss made lens systems capable of projecting in excess of 200 000 lp/mm
Which one is that?

>>4311465
A system they designed for ASLM wich is used by TSMC now, operates in EUV (13,5 nm) and is a purely mirror based system.
Light starts to behave weird at that kind of wavelength as lenses stop working and nothing reflects it well anymore.
So they had to come up with a whole new type of Mo/Si multilayer mirror system that had to be absolutely defect free.